Flavius Josephus About Jesus?

[Oberon]

I view it the same way that you do. For the time being the historical brother of Jesus remains as allusive as Jesus.

True. Not allusive at all.

 

[Oberon]

With so many Jameses in the gospels we have to determine which James is supposed to be alive and which one is dead.

James Jesus' disciple died, and so did his brother. Josephus record his brother dying. And yes, many people were named James. Which is why Josephus specifies that this James was the brother of Jesus called Christ, to make this clearer.

Additionally we have to figure out the manner of death because there seems to be some conflicting reports from "primary sources"....

Such as?

Regardless of who thinks it authentic there simply isn't enough info to conclude that.

'
With the shorter reference there certainly is. There is no real debate about this by experts.

I fnd there to be reason to think (who was called christ) was an insert by some scribe under the impression this James and Jesus was from their understanding from existings scrolls (i.e. Mark)

.
Why? It isn't a chrisitan title. Morever, if James was the brother of Jesus son of Damneus, he would have bee indentified as Jesus was. Moreover, Jesus would have been identified as Damneus' son in the first mention, not later.
Finally, if Jesus son of Damneus was related to James, the one executed, then in first century judaism he would also have been an outcase.

the brother of James, son of Damneus.

Again, you clearly don't understand how identifiers were used. If Jesus is identified by Damneus, it makes Damneus the identifier. Not Jesus. His brother would ALSO be identified by Damneus.

 

[Ben Masada]

[/color][/b]
Wrong. Jesus was executed. The apostles were in hiding. This is in the gospels, prior to Paul.


Jesus was executed by the Romans and not the Jews. As I can see you are fast learner of the Antisemitism of Luke in Acts 2:36. A false accusation that even the Head of Christianity, late Pope John 23rd asked publicly from the Jewish People to forgive Christianity for.


Then, we know that Jews were persecuting the church, because Paul was one of them.


The Jews never persecuted the church, neither did Paul. There was never a church in Israel at the time of Paul. And outside Israel, Christians did not gather in synagogues. Read Acts 9:1-3. The followers of Jesus, Paul would persecute gathered in synagogues and not in churches. Churches started with Paul. (Acts 11:26)

We know that the disciples were preaching the risen christ prior to Paul, because Acts tells us.


So, explain the contradiction why Paul almost got killed for preaching the same.


Finally, we know that the church was persecuted apart from Paul, because James was executed and Peter was arrested, even after Paul was gone.

Luke was a Hellenistic Gentile with the mission to blame the Jews with lies as the one of Acts 2, a speech which was never delivered by Peter. (Acts 2:14)

Only Acts 4 records contention prior to Paul, as do the gospels. In acts 5, the apostles are put in prison. This is all prior to Paul. Read your sources before spouting this bunk.


Why don't you think for a change and stop giving credibilities to the Hellenistic antisemitic Gentiles who wrote the NT?

 

[Ben Masada]

[/b][/color]

If you want to claim that they were called christians because of Paul, then someone somewhere should connect the two. But all you have is a reference that the followers of the Jesus sect were first called christians in a place where Paul, among other, was.

It doesn't matter who was with Paul. The disciples started being called Christians because Paul spent a whole year in Antioch preaching that Jesus was Christ. (Acts 11:26)

. The same source records the other apostles preaching the risen christ prior to Paul.

Whose source, Luke's? But of course! What did you expect?

Wrong. There are multiple James in Acts. Read Acts 1:12. The disciple of Jesus who was the more important James was James the brother of John, not the brother of Jesus.

The most important James was the head of the Nazarenes in Jerusalem, and you said that he was killed in Acts 12. A brother is more important than a disciple.

Once again, you are reading into the text. There is nothing about Paul as a founder, nor James presiding, nor anything else you claim.

You don't read the texts I quote. You prefer to answer from the top of your head. Look in Acts 15 who stood up to close the Council meeting with the last word. The president, who was James.

The other, more important James, was James Jesus' disciple, the brother of John, who dies in Acts 12. James Jesus' brother is still alive.

More important than who? Don't you think you are making a ridicule of yourself?

How is this a contradiction? Stephen is killed prior to Paul. Acts records the apostles being arrested in acts 5 prior to Paul. The gospels record them in hiding. Acts records James the brother of John being killed while Paul is nowhere near, and Peter being arrested. Josephus records James the brother of Jesus being killed, while Paul is nowhere in sight.

All forgeries. Not only the one of Josephus but also those of Luke as well. How could Josephus record the death of James, the brother of Jesus, when this was there all along till the end of Paul's carreer in the Middle East? And the execution of Stephen never happened for several reasons. The method to execute a criminal by the Sanhedrin wouldn't be the way the alleged execution of Stephen took place. Second, the gospels claim that the Jewish leaders did not execute Jesus because they didn't have the power to do so, because of the Romans. How come they had the power to execute Stephen? Had the Romans left already? The name is contradiction. And last but not least, it was not a custom to let a criminal on the spot of execution to deliver such a long speech as did Stephen. And mind you that his speech was too Christian when Christianity had another 15 years to rise in Antioch with Paul. (Acts 11:26)

 

[Oberon]

Jesus was executed by the Romans and not the Jews.

Read your sources to avoid looking foolish. It was because of the other Jews that the Romans arrested him. He was upsetting them, they called for his death, and his disciples were in danger from them.

As I can see you are fast learner of the Antisemitism of Luke in Acts 2:36. A false accusation that even the Head of Christianity, late Pope John 23rd asked publicly from the Jewish People to forgive Christianity for.

The pope asked forgiveness for anti-semiticism, not Luke/Acts.


Then, we know that Jews were persecuting the church, because Paul was one of them.

The Jews never persecuted the church, neither did Paul. There was never a church in Israel at the time of Paul.

Yes, you keep saying this without any basis. Acts records the earliest followers preaching the risen Christ. It also records them being a arrested and killed before Paul even joined. They are arrested in Acts 5 and Stephen is also killed in Acts 7. So much for you "know persecutiong before Paul" bunk.

And outside Israel, Christians did not gather in synagogues. Read Acts 9:1-3. The followers of Jesus, Paul would persecute gathered in synagogues and not in churches.

Again, read your source before spouting this junk, to avoid looking foolish. In Acts 9:1-3, Paul is not yet a christian, so he asks the high priest for a letter to the synagogues for support of local Jews in persecuting the church. Let me make this clear, since you have trouble with the passage: The Synagogues in Act 9:1-3 were not the meeting places of the christians. Paul wan't support from them in persecuting the church, and so asked the high priest to write letters to them.

The passage says NOTHING about christians being in the synagogues.

Churches started with Paul. (Acts 11:26)

Again, read your sources to avoid looking foolish. The same word ekkesia/church is used long before Act 11:26, and long before Paul. (Act 2:47, Act 5:11, Act 7:38).

So, explain the contradiction why Paul almost got killed for preaching the same.

Where is the contradiction? Stephen WAS killed before Paul. The disciples WERE arrested before Paul. The "peace" between Jews and the christians prior to Paul was non-existant.

Luke was a Hellenistic Gentile with the mission to blame the Jews with lies

Once again, you are picking and choosing what to believe. You believe Luke where you think he agrees with you, and reject what doesn't fit into your little fantasy. Your only methodology is picking what you like, and rejecting the rest. Acts clearly records preaching of the risen Christ prior to Paul. It clearly records persecution and execution of the followers of Jesus prior to Paul. You have no basis for your claim of "contradiction."

Why don't you think for a change and stop giving credibilities to the Hellenistic antisemitic Gentiles who wrote the NT?

You have been using Acts this whole time to support your theories. Now, when it is clear that Acts doesn't, all of the sudden it isn't a worthwhile sources. Of course, even a disctinctly Jewish source records that an early Christian (James, Jesus' brother) was executed, and he also records that Jesus was called the Christ. Paul is nowhere mentioned.

 

[Oberon]

It doesn't matter who was with Paul. The disciples started being called Christians because Paul spent a whole year in Antioch preaching that Jesus was Christ. (Acts 11:26)

Only Act 11:26 doesn't say this. It doesn't say "because." Moreover, Act 11 has Barnabas travelling WITH Paul, and he was a follower BEFORE paul. So there is just as much reason to suppose it was because of Barnabas as with Paul. Both of them travelled their together, and both of them were preaching the risen Christ.

Whose source, Luke's? But of course! What did you expect?

That Luke, as a fairly good ancient historian, and one who was there, was in a pretty good position to know. Moreover, all the gospels and the epistles tell us that the apostles preached the risen Christ prior to Paul.

And since your source for your whole theory about Paul is by using Acts, you can't really just pick and choose which parts you want to believe and expect that to be an acceptable critical methodology which anyone should take seriously.

The most important James was the head of the Nazarenes in Jerusalem, and you said that he was killed in Acts 12. A brother is more important than a disciple.

You have no evidence for this. In fact, the accounts from the gospels clearly record that during his ministry Jesus didn't get along well with his family. Morever, Paul, the gospels, and Acts BOTH clearly show that the more important James was James the brother of John, who dies in Acts 12, not the brother of the lord.

You don't read the texts I quote. You prefer to answer from the top of your head. Look in Acts 15 who stood up to close the Council meeting with the last word. The president, who was James.

You should look. It doesn't say president. He simply said something last. Doesn't make him the president. In fact, Act 15:2 is explicit that a number of apostles and elders are meeting, but says nothing about one spokesperson.

More important than who? Don't you think you are making a ridicule of yourself?

No, but I think you are doing a pretty good job of making yourself look foolish. James, the brother of John, who is the disciple of Jesus in the gospels (where James the brother of the lord is never mentioned as a disciple) was the more important one. Paul also says he was more important, and Acts states he died in Acts 12. After that, the James later called "James the Lesser" the brother of the lord was still around, but he was not as important as the James who died in Acts 12.

All forgeries. Not only the one of Josephus but also those of Luke as well.

Unfortunately, the classicists, NT and biblical scholars, and scholars of ancient Judaism all disagree with you about Josephus. Moreover, you have been using Acts this whole time to support you argument. And when it doesn't all the sudden it is because of forgeries. Nice try.

How could Josephus record the death of James, the brother of Jesus, when this was there all along till the end of Paul's carreer in the Middle East?

Because Josephus was writing his account long after the end of Paul's career. He records the death of James, but he doesn't put it at a time that contradicts Acts. Read your sources.

Second, the gospels claim that the Jewish leaders did not execute Jesus because they didn't have the power to do so, because of the Romans. How come they had the power to execute Stephen?

1. The leaders of the Jews were afraid of the populas many of whom were very interested in Jesus and were following him. This is expressly stated in the gospels (e.g. Mark 12:12). So they appealed to the Romans to avoid angering the populas.
2. Only John, our least reliable and latest gospel, states that they didn't have the authority to execute.
3. The murder of stephen was hardly a proper execution. They attacked him, dragged him out of the city, and stoned him.

Had the Romans left already? The name is contradiction.

We have no evidence other than a line in our most unreliable gospel that the couldn't execute without the Romans authority. Josephus clearly records this isn't the case, and none of the other gospels mention that they needed roman authority. They simply didn't want to upset the populas, many of whom were smitten with Jesus.

And last but not least, it was not a custom to let a criminal on the spot of execution to deliver such a long speech as did Stephen.

Source? Or just making things up as usual?

And mind you that his speech was too Christian when Christianity had another 15 years to rise in Antioch with Paul. (Acts 11:26)

So we believe Acts when it says that it was Antioch when they were first called christians, but we ignore it when it says stephen was executed and the apostles were arrested prior to Paul's conversion, and that James was killed and Peter arrested again apart from Paul, and that all the apostles preached the risen Christ.

Basically, all you have in support of your theory is one line in Acts which doesn't explicitly connect Paul with the sect first being called Christians, and you are ignoring the rest because you don't like what it says.

You read into the text what you want, and ignore what you don't like, and expect it to be taken seriously?

 

[logician]

Josephust is the slimmest of evidence to base anyting on that the Jesus myth is anything but that.

 

[Oberon]

Josephust is the slimmest of evidence to base anyting on that the Jesus myth is anything but that.

Yes, a non-christian Jewish historian attesting to Jesus is slim. Right. Which degrees in ancient history do you hold again?

We have an abundance of evidence for Jesus. We have a genuine passage in Josephus about James, the brother of Jesus, the one called Christ. We have the altered reference of Josephus, but the original did discuss jesus. We have the epistles of Paul, who knew Jesus' disciples and Jesus' brother. We have four bioi of Jesus, the earliest (Mark) written by a man who was probably alive during Jesus' day, and Luke certainly knew Jesus' disciples. We have other epistles as well, some also early. Moreover, we have early christians like Papias and Polycarp who attest to knowing the disciples of the lord. We have a wealth of attestation for a preacher/teacher/prophet/wonder-worker Jesus whose mission took place in the 30s of the first century.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

That's one approach, and it certainly has its proponents, but a wide consensus of scholarship is against it, for several reasons. To quote Gerd Theissen and Anne Merz, "


Neither the arguments for the complete authenticity nor the those who [who argue] for an interpolation are convincing…[those who argue for interpolation] fall short with respect to evidence, that clearly echoes of the typical language usage of Josephus are present.

Die Historische Jesus: Ein Lehrbuch. P. 78

The authors go on to note that removing a few lines makes the passage flow completely in text. Furthermore, the rabbi Vermes the noted scholar of Judaism has studied the matter in great deal and points out that with a few lines the removed the Passage completely resembles Josephus, fits well into the context, and contains typical Jospehan vocabulary and style.

So what?....This is just what is meant by "Interpolation"...I mean in case these scholars aren't familiar with the definition. It simply means that some one has inserted information into an area that was not original. For him to say that (removing some lines make the paragraph flow) is just what we mean by the text has been interpolated.

I can see it if he was making a charge against (fabrication)...which I still remain convinced is a possibility. If he was saying that the "whole" passage was not fabricated then I would except his (opinion) as that but in lieu of the actual unedited work by Josephus I can't rule out the possibility.

Why throw Jesus into the picture first, and then identify him AFTER the fact? Moever, if a scribe interpolated the passage why doesn't it look christan?

You contend this not me. I've seen interpolated documents and plagiarized documents passed off to resemble the original work.

It is not a chistian way of referring to Jesus, and moreoever it can easily be interpreted as anti-christian. A christian would have said "Jesus, the christ." The fact thtat Jesus in only called christ, but is not christ, isn't very christian. In ther larger reference, it is just this sort of statement which makes alteration likely.

Perhaps but was it a Christian (Justin Martyr and Irenaues) that said;

"
Justin Martyr, First Apology, 30:
But lest any one should meet us with the question, What should prevent that He whom we call Christ, being a man born of men, performed what we call His mighty works by magical art, and by this appeared to be the Son of God? we will now offer proof . . ."

If that's not christian then please tell me what is. Even the followers of the biblical christ (the gospel writers) expressed it that way in various passages.

In this case, if the Jesus son of Damneus is identified by his father, so should his brother, as the father is clearly the best identifier.
3. James being executed is would not result in the promotion of his brother. The opprobrium based culture and the kin networks meant that if a brother was executed it would reflect on the whole family.

Perhaps but I still remain unconvinced. We do find the language laid out in the "primary sources" that way. Not strict adherence to the style but it is there.

2Samuel 23:18 And Abishai, the brother of Joab, the son of Zeruiah, was chief among three. And he lifted up his spear against three hundred, and slew them, and had the name among three.

However, if "son of Damneus" is good enough to identify the later Jesus, it most certainly be good enough to identify James, if he as the brother of this Jesus. There is no reason to identify Jesus as the son of Damneus, but not his brother.
Additionally, if we remove "the one called christ" then Jesus is NOT identified until later, completely turning around the standard identification proceudres. Makes no sense.

Makes perfect sense but we shall agree to just disagree here.

 

[blueman]

[/color][/b]
Wrong. Jesus was executed. The apostles were in hiding. This is in the gospels, prior to Paul.


Jesus was executed by the Romans and not the Jews. As I can see you are fast learner of the Antisemitism of Luke in Acts 2:36. A false accusation that even the Head of Christianity, late Pope John 23rd asked publicly from the Jewish People to forgive Christianity for.


Then, we know that Jews were persecuting the church, because Paul was one of them.


The Jews never persecuted the church, neither did Paul. There was never a church in Israel at the time of Paul. And outside Israel, Christians did not gather in synagogues. Read Acts 9:1-3. The followers of Jesus, Paul would persecute gathered in synagogues and not in churches. Churches started with Paul. (Acts 11:26)

We know that the disciples were preaching the risen christ prior to Paul, because Acts tells us.


So, explain the contradiction why Paul almost got killed for preaching the same.


Finally, we know that the church was persecuted apart from Paul, because James was executed and Peter was arrested, even after Paul was gone.

Luke was a Hellenistic Gentile with the mission to blame the Jews with lies as the one of Acts 2, a speech which was never delivered by Peter. (Acts 2:14)

Only Acts 4 records contention prior to Paul, as do the gospels. In acts 5, the apostles are put in prison. This is all prior to Paul. Read your sources before spouting this bunk.


Why don't you think for a change and stop giving credibilities to the Hellenistic antisemitic Gentiles who wrote the NT?

Wwho made Pope John the 23rd the head of Christianity?? Secondly, the biblical record in which a number of scholars consider valid and authentic, reference the Jewish leaders of that day having a hand in facilitating the persecution of another Jew (Jesus) and pushing for His cruxifiction. How is that anti-semetic? The bottom line is whether they were Jewish or whatever, sinful men instigated the cruxifiction of Christ. The Romans were not the instigators, they just carried out the task of capital punishment.

 

[Oberon]

So what?....This is just what is meant by "Interpolation"...I mean in case these scholars aren't familiar with the definition. It simply means that some one has inserted information into an area that was not original. For him to say that (removing some lines make the paragraph flow) is just what we mean by the text has been interpolated.

No. There is a difference between "revision" and interpolation. The interpolation theory is that the entire passage has been inserted. The revisionist theory is that some words have been inserted in various places.

I can see it if he was making a charge against (fabrication)...which I still remain convinced is a possibility. If he was saying that the "whole" passage was not fabricated then I would except his (opinion) as that but in lieu of the actual unedited work by Josephus I can't rule out the possibility.

They are saying that they, and a wide consensus, accept the "revisionist" hypothesis which posits that words were added by a christian altering the text. The interpolation hypothesis, which they and most reject, is that the entire passage was added. The authenticity hypothesis, which says the whole thing is Josephus, they and most also reject.

You contend this not me. I've seen interpolated documents and plagiarized documents passed off to resemble the original work.

Your missing the whole reason to assume interpolation. The reason we assume the longer reference is interpolated is because it doesn't look like Josephus could have written it. This isn't true with the shorter reference. Why would a christian scribe alter it in a non-christian way? What purpose would that serve? Its not like they were trying to "prove" jesus was historical. Nobody in the ancient world denied this, pagan christian or Jewish. Why on earth insert "jesus called christ?" What's the point?

Perhaps but was it a Christian (Justin Martyr and Irenaues) that said;

Different line. "He whom we "christians" call christ" was written by an christian apologist to pagans. It is clearly explaining to non-christians what christians think. This is TOTALLY different from "jesus called christ." For one thing, CALLED christ very easily could be taken as "called, but really not" in the context Josephus uses it. Furthermore, it makes perfect sense for a christian writing to pagans to say that they call Jesus christ.

It doesn't make sense for a christian scribe to go out of his way to alter a reference to a Jesus in josephus to ADD a non-typical christian title. The motivations behind the alteration of the longer reference in josephus are clear. They wan't Jesus to look better. The shorter reference is at best neutral to Jesus, and at worst means that he isn't the christ.

And, if they just went around adding "called christ" to people named jesus, why not do that with all the other Jesus' mentioned? What is the point of altering this text, when at best it doesn't make christianity or Jesus look any better in any way and at worse makes them bad (jesus is only called christ, but really isn't)?

"

If that's not christian then please tell me what is. Even the followers of the biblical christ (the gospel writers) expressed it that way in various passages.

We've gone over every instance. See earlier responses. John uses it to translate "messiah" and elsewhere it is put on the lips of Pilate, who says that his followers call him christ. Nowhere is it anything remotely like a christian term. Jesus WAS Christ. It was practically his last name from very early on. He is also called Lord, and some other things, but there are virtually NO christian references to anything like "jesus called christ" anywhere in christian literature, and those places that come close differ greatly from the line in josephus.

Perhaps but I still remain unconvinced. We do find the language laid out in the "primary sources" that way. Not strict adherence to the style but it is there.

2Samuel 23:18 And Abishai, the brother of Joab, the son of Zeruiah, was chief among three. And he lifted up his spear against three hundred, and slew them, and had the name among three.

Very different. This is simply a double identifier. It is not the same as identifying James by his brother, and then his brother by his father. You identify people typically by important kin, and primarily the father (also place of origin, or nicknames). What you don't do is a identify one guy by his brother, and then his brother by his father. More importantly, you identify first, not wait for the second reference.

So lets look at this clearly from two perspectives. First, why suppose an interpolation or revision in a text?

1. Various texts have various readings.
2. The line or passage clearly doesn't fit the authors views, time period, etc.
3. The line or passage does not fit syntactically or thematically in the text.

None of those are true here.
1. All the texts say the same thing.
2. The passage and line is at best neutral to christians, and at worst hostile to Jesus. It displays no typical christian attitudes. James is a minor figure, and he serves a peripheral purpose to highlight the injustice of the high priest. No christian titles or terms are used to describe Jesus, he is only "called Christ" which can mean that he really isn't.
3.The line fits well syntactically in the passage. Jesus is used to identify James, and "called Christ" identifies Jesus. It is a standard syntactic formula for identification.

In short, unless you are like Earl Doherty or dogsgod and obsessed with denying a historical Jesus, there is simply no reason to doubt the line.

 

[dogsgod]

George Albert Wells has conjectured that the words "who was called Christ" were not in the original passage, the words having originated as a marginal note by a Christian copyist, which later became accidentally incorporated into the main body of the text.

It could have been unintentional.

 

[Oberon]

George Albert Wells has conjectured that the words "who was called Christ" were not in the original passage, the words having originated as a marginal note by a Christian copyist, which later became accidentally incorporated into the main body of the text.

It could have been unintentional.

Wells is a professor of German studies. All the classicists, NT scholars, scholars of Judaism, and biblicals scholars with almost no exceptions disagree.

So lets look at this clearly from two perspectives. First, why suppose an interpolation or revision in a text?

1. Various texts have various readings.
2. The line or passage clearly doesn't fit the authors views, time period, etc.
3. The line or passage does not fit syntactically or thematically in the text.

None of those are true here.
1. All the texts say the same thing.
2. The passage and line is at best neutral to christians, and at worst hostile to Jesus. It displays no typical christian attitudes. James is a minor figure, and he serves a peripheral purpose to highlight the injustice of the high priest. No christian titles or terms are used to describe Jesus, he is only "called Christ" which can mean that he really isn't.
3.The line fits well syntactically in the passage. Jesus is used to identify James, and "called Christ" identifies Jesus. It is a standard syntactic formula for identification.

In short, unless you are like Earl Doherty, or Wells, or dogsgod and obsessed with denying a historical Jesus, there is simply no reason to doubt the line.

 

[Ben Masada]

Read your sources to avoid looking foolish. It was because of the other Jews that the Romans arrested him. He was upsetting them, they called for his death, and his disciples were in danger from them.

You report the lies of the Hellenistic writers of the NT like a parrot, which knows only one phrase. Why don't you explain the contradiction that Jesus came to confirm the most important thing to the Jews, which is God's Law and these Jews ask the enemies of Israel to crucify him? This makes sense only to anti-Semites who want to transfer the blame on the death of Jesus from the Romans to the Jews. (Mat. 5:19; 27:25)

The pope asked forgiveness for anti-semiticism, not Luke/Acts.

The Pope asked forgiveness for the false accusation that the Jews had crucified Jesus. (Acts 2:36) You are making a ridicule of yourself by speaking without knowing what you are talking about.

Then, we know that Jews were persecuting the church, because Paul was one of them.

Paul never persecuted a church in his life because it does not make sense for a founder of a church to persecute the adepts. (Acts 11:26)

Yes, you keep saying this without any basis. Acts records the earliest followers preaching the risen Christ. It also records them being a arrested and killed before Paul even joined. They are arrested in Acts 5 and Stephen is also killed in Acts 7. So much for you "know persecutiong before Paul" bunk.

If the Apostles preached about the resurrection of Jesus, why was Paul almost killed for doing the same? It makes no sense, and you never explain the contradiction. Why don't you just say you don't know? A parrot would.

The Synagogues in Act 9:1-3 were not the meeting places of the christians. Paul wan't support from them in persecuting the church, and so asked the high priest to write letters to them.

Read the text without preconceived notions. What empowered Paul were the letters he got from the Hight Priest in Jerusalem to persecute those of the "New Way." You are making a ridicule of yourself.

The passage says NOTHING about christians being in the synagogues.

Of course not! They didn't exist yet.

Where is the contradiction? Stephen WAS killed before Paul. The disciples WERE arrested before Paul. The "peace" between Jews and the christians prior to Paul was non-existant.

Stephen never happened for several reasons. First, the gospel writers say that Jews could not execute Jesus because they had lost that power for the Romans. How come they executed Stephen? Had the Romans left Israel by the time of Stephen? No, the name is contradiction. Second, the Sanhedrin would not condemn a man in that manner. Third, a criminal to be executed would not be allowed such a long speech in the case of Stephen. Fourth, his speech was too Christian, when Christianity had another 15 years to start with Paul in Antioch.

You have been using Acts this whole time to support your theories. Now, when it is clear that Acts doesn't, all of the sudden it isn't a worthwhile sources. Of course, even a disctinctly Jewish source records that an early Christian (James, Jesus' brother) was executed, and he also records that Jesus was called the Christ. Paul is nowhere mentioned.

James, Jesus' brother was never a Christian. He was a Nazarene. And I believe he even survived Paul. He was still alive when Paul was arrested and taken to Rome. You believe in forgeries when they happen to justify your fantasies. James never called Jesus as Christ, because he had never heard of it until Paul showed up with the idea.

 

[Ben Masada]

Wwho made Pope John the 23rd the head of Christianity?? Secondly, the biblical record in which a number of scholars consider valid and authentic, reference the Jewish leaders of that day having a hand in facilitating the persecution of another Jew (Jesus) and pushing for His cruxifiction. How is that anti-semetic? The bottom line is whether they were Jewish or whatever, sinful men instigated the cruxifiction of Christ. The Romans were not the instigators, they just carried out the task of capital punishment.

The time, perhaps more than a thousand years before your kind of Christian denomination started. I know the reason why non-Catholic Christians are eager to deny the Pope his title as head of Christianity.

If you believe that Jews asked the Romans to crucify Jesus, how do you explain the contradiction that Jesus came to confirm the most important thing to the Jews which is God's Law, and these Jews ask the enemies of Israel to crucify Jesus? This makes sense only to anti-Semites. The Antisemitism here is to want to transfer the blame from the Romans to the Jews, by falsely accusing the Jews of being Christ-Killers.

 

[Oberon]

You report the lies of the Hellenistic writers of the NT like a parrot

All your sources for you points have come from Acts. You read into the text and extrapolate what you want from it. Far worse than someone parroting the source, which I am not.

Why don't you explain the contradiction that Jesus came to confirm the most important thing to the Jews, which is God's Law and these Jews ask the enemies of Israel to crucify him?

Because Jesus' conception of what God's law was, and who god was, differed from the views of many other Jews, like the elite class of Jews.

This makes sense only to anti-Semites who want to transfer the blame on the death of Jesus from the Romans to the Jews. (Mat. 5:19; 27:25)

Read Matthew 27:1. The Jews were the first to codemn Jesus. They just had the romans carry out the sentence. Read your sources to avoid looking foolish.
The pope asked forgiveness for anti-semiticism, not Luke/Acts.

The Pope asked forgiveness for the false accusation that the Jews had crucified Jesus. (Acts 2:36) You are making a ridicule of yourself by speaking without knowing what you are talking about.

Quote the pope apologizing for this.

Paul never persecuted a church in his life because it does not make sense for a founder of a church to persecute the adepts. (Acts 11:26)

Acts 11:26 doesn't say Paul founded the church. Acts records the apostles preaching the risen Christ prior to Paul. Read your sources to avoid looking foolish.

If the Apostles preached about the resurrection of Jesus, why was Paul almost killed for doing the same?

For the same reason Stephen was, BEFORE Paul (Acts 7). And for the same reason the apostles were arrested BEFORE Paul (Acts 5). Read your sources.

The Synagogues in Act 9:1-3 were not the meeting places of the christians. Paul wan't support from them in persecuting the church, and so asked the high priest to write letters to them.

Read the text without preconceived notions. What empowered Paul were the letters he got from the Hight Priest in Jerusalem to persecute those of the "New Way." You are making a ridicule of yourself.

He persecuted the Jesus sect. Paul never refers to them as christians, but as followers of the lord, and he in his letters admits to persecuting them, and Acts also records this. Read your sources to avoid appearing completely ignorant.

The passage says NOTHING about christians being in the synagogues.

Of course not! They didn't exist yet.

Paul never called himself Christian either. Acts only records outsiders calling them christian, and doesn't connect this with Paul.

Stephen never happened for several reasons. First, the gospel writers say that Jews could not execute Jesus because they had lost that power for the Romans.

Only John, our most unreliable gospel, says that. But he is contradicted by Jewish historians like Josephus, as well as the other gospels, who don't say that.

How come they executed Stephen?

Because, like Paul, he was preaching the resurrected messiah.

Second, the Sanhedrin would not condemn a man in that manner.

Source? No, you don't have one.

Third, a criminal to be executed would not be allowed such a long speech in the case of Stephen.

And again, you have no source to back this up.

Fourth, his speech was too Christian, when Christianity had another 15 years to start with Paul in Antioch.

You are too funny. You ask me to explain an alleged contradiction, and then when I show that it isn't, you call all the of that evidence false anyway. Basically, anything you don't believe isn't historical.

In the real world, however, Stephen was a christian preaching the risen christ and died for it prior to Paul. So much for your contridiction.

James, Jesus' brother was never a Christian. He was a Nazarene.

Paul was never a christian either. Acts records that they were first called outsiders by Christians, and does not connect this with Paul. It took a long while after Paul for the term to be used by christians themselves.

And I believe he even survived Paul. He was still alive when Paul was arrested and taken to Rome.

He survived until he was killed by Herod, according to Josephus, in a passage all the Josephan experts regard as genuine.

You believe in forgeries when they happen to justify your fantasies. James

No, you call everything you don't want to accept a forgery. You use no historical critcal methodology. You just choose what you want to accept, and interpet it in whatever way you want. Don't expect anyone who knows anything to buy it.

never called Jesus as Christ, because he had never heard of it until Paul showed up with the idea.

Except according to the gospels and acts the disciples all preached the risen christ prior to James.

Nice try. Read your sources more carefully, and you might consider reading some actual scholarship. That way you can avoid looking completely ignorant on this topic.

 

[Ben Masada]

Only Act 11:26 doesn't say this. It doesn't say "because." Moreover, Act 11 has Barnabas travelling WITH Paul, and he was a follower BEFORE paul. So there is just as much reason to suppose it was because of Barnabas as with Paul. Both of them travelled their together, and both of them were preaching the risen Christ.

You have no evidence that Barnabas was preaching about Jesus as Christ.

That Luke, as a fairly good ancient historian, and one who was there, was in a pretty good position to know. Moreover, all the gospels and the epistles tell us that the apostles preached the risen Christ prior to Paul.

Nevertheless, when Paul showed up with the same message, he almost got killed. Explain the contradiction and stop speaking like a parrot.

You have no evidence for this. In fact, the accounts from the gospels clearly record that during his ministry Jesus didn't get along well with his family. Morever, Paul, the gospels, and Acts BOTH clearly show that the more important James was James the brother of John, who dies in Acts 12, not the brother of the lord.

Nevertheless, he was not the one chosen to be the head of the Sect of the Nazarenes. Such importance he had!

You should look. It doesn't say president. He simply said something last. Doesn't make him the president. In fact, Act 15:2 is explicit that a number of apostles and elders are meeting, but says nothing about one spokesperson.

Read Acts 15:13. The New American Version of the Bible says at the footnote that James spoke to close the meeting becuase he was the Leader of the Jerusalem Community. That's the most important James that you say was killed in Acts 12. Nice try!

Because Josephus was writing his account long after the end of Paul's career. He records the death of James, but he doesn't put it at a time that contradicts Acts. Read your sources.

Now, I got your leg and I will pull it with gusto. When did the gospel writers write their accounts, including the book of Acts, at the moment they happened? Nice try wise guy. They wrote their accounts 50+ years after Jesus had been gone.

1. The leaders of the Jews were afraid of the populas many of whom were very interested in Jesus and were following him. This is expressly stated in the gospels (e.g. Mark 12:12). So they appealed to the Romans to avoid angering the populas.

You have no NT evidences that they appealed to the Romans to avoid angering the populas, if you mean the people. Show me the quotation.

3. The murder of stephen was hardly a proper execution. They attacked him, dragged him out of the city, and stoned him.

Oh! I thought they had given him such a long time to deliver that so long a speech. Did you forget his speech? Wake up and stop making a fool of yourself.

So we believe Acts when it says that it was Antioch when they were first called christians, but we ignore it when it says stephen was executed and the apostles were arrested prior to Paul's conversion, and that James was killed and Peter arrested again apart from Paul, and that all the apostles preached the risen Christ.

The same thing over and over again like a parrot.

 

[Ben Masada]

[/color][/b]

Because Jesus' conception of what God's law was, and who god was, differed from the views of many other Jews, like the elite class of Jews.

Prove it with a quotation, because what I have in Matthew 5:19 is otherwise.

Acts 11:26 doesn't say Paul founded the church. Acts records the apostles preaching the risen Christ prior to Paul. Read your sources to avoid looking foolish.

If Paul did not found Christianity, who did, Jesus? Prove it. If Christian started with Paul, he was the founder. Even a moron can see more than that.


He persecuted the Jesus sect. Paul never refers to them as christians, but as followers of the lord, and he in his letters admits to persecuting them, and Acts also records this. Read your sources to avoid appearing completely ignorant.

You speak from your mouth out, you are not thinking.

Only John, our most unreliable gospel, says that. But he is contradicted by Jewish historians like Josephus, as well as the other gospels, who don't say that.

As I can see, you put too much faith in unreliable sources.

You are too funny. You ask me to explain an alleged contradiction, and then when I show that it isn't, you call all the of that evidence false anyway. Basically, anything you don't believe isn't historical.

You have no evidence for anything you say. Everything is based on false notions. I think you do this just for thrill to argue.

In the real world, however, Stephen was a christian preaching the risen christ and died for it prior to Paul. So much for your contridiction.

No, he was not real. He did not exist. Too many contradictions.

Paul was never a christian either. Acts records that they were first called outsiders by Christians, and does not connect this with Paul. It took a long while after Paul for the term to be used by christians themselves.

Nevetheless, Christians started with him. Read Acts 11:26.

He survived until he was killed by Herod, according to Josephus, in a passage all the Josephan experts regard as genuine.

You love to believe unreliable sources and interpolations.

No, you call everything you don't want to accept a forgery. You use no historical critcal methodology. You just choose what you want to accept, and interpet it in whatever way you want. Don't expect anyone who knows anything to buy it.

You are making a fool of yourself if you think the readers are buying your stuff.

Except according to the gospels and acts the disciples all preached the risen christ prior to James.

No, they didn't. If they had done it, Paul would not have almost been killed for doing the same.

 

[Oberon]

You have no evidence that Barnabas was preaching about Jesus as Christ.

Only I do. Acts 9:27. Barnabas speaks of Jesus as THE lord.

Nevertheless, when Paul showed up with the same message, he almost got killed. Explain the contradiction and stop speaking like a parrot.

It isn't a contradiction. The Jesus sect was persecuted from the beginning. Paul was persecuted for the same reason Stephen was, BEFORE Paul (Acts 7). And for the same reason the apostles were arrested BEFORE Paul (Acts 5)

You have no evidence for this. In fact, the accounts from the gospels clearly record that during his ministry Jesus didn't get along well with his family. Morever, Paul, the gospels, and Acts BOTH clearly show that the more important James was James the brother of John, who dies in Acts 12, not the brother of the lord.

Nevertheless, he was not the one chosen to be the head of the Sect of the Nazarenes. Such importance he had!

No, that was Peter. James was next in line. James the brother of the lord was under him.

You should look. It doesn't say president. He simply said something last. Doesn't make him the president. In fact, Act 15:2 is explicit that a number of apostles and elders are meeting, but says nothing about one spokesperson.

Read Acts 15:13. The New American Version of the Bible says at the footnote that James spoke to close the meeting becuase he was the Leader of the Jerusalem Community. That's the most important James that you say was killed in Acts 12. Nice try!

The more important James and Peter were exucted fairly soon. And give me an exact citation for your claim that James the brother of Jesus was the leader of the Jerusalem community. Oh wait. You have none.

Because Josephus was writing his account long after the end of Paul's career. He records the death of James, but he doesn't put it at a time that contradicts Acts. Read your sources.

Now, I got your leg and I will pull it with gusto. When did the gospel writers write their accounts, including the book of Acts, at the moment they happened? Nice try wise guy. They wrote their accounts 50+ years after Jesus had been gone.

Wrong. Mark was roughly 35 years after Jesus had died. More importantly, in the ancient world this would be considered reliable information. Eyewitnesses were still alive while Mark, Matthew, and Luke were.

1. The leaders of the Jews were afraid of the populas many of whom were very interested in Jesus and were following him. This is expressly stated in the gospels (e.g. Mark 12:12). So they appealed to the Romans to avoid angering the populas.

You have no NT evidences that they appealed to the Romans to avoid angering the populas, if you mean the people. Show me the quotation.

Mat 26:3 Then assembled together the chief priests, and the scribes, and the elders of the people, unto the palace of the high priest, who was called Caiaphas,
Mat 26:4 And consulted that they might take Jesus by subtilty, and kill him.
Mat 26:5 But they said, Not on the feast day, lest there be an uproar among the people.

Mar 14:1 After two days was the feast of the passover, and of unleavened bread: and the chief priests and the scribes sought how they might take him by craft, and put him to death.
Mar 14:2 But they said, Not on the feast day, lest there be an uproar of the people.

The gospels clearly record the fear of the elite jews of angering the populas, so they had Pilate do it.


3. The murder of stephen was hardly a proper execution. They attacked him, dragged him out of the city, and stoned him.

Oh! I thought they had given him such a long time to deliver that so long a speech. Did you forget his speech? Wake up and stop making a fool of yourself.

It wasn't that long a speech. And as a result, he upset them so much they killed him.

 

[Oberon]

Prove it with a quotation, because what I have in Matthew 5:19 is otherwise.

Jesus' prohibited divorce. He upset the temple. He healed in the name of God and cast of demons in the name of god. He claimed to be the messiah. He claimed he could forgive sins. He ate and shared fellowships with "outsiders." Check out the sources. Jesus believed he was fulling God's law. But he interpreted differently than many other Jewish groups/leaders.

If Paul did not found Christianity, who did, Jesus? Prove it. If Christian started with Paul, he was the founder. Even a moron can see more than that.

Right. Acts records the earliest apostle before Jesus preaching the risen christ. Paul never uses the word christian. Jesus is the founder of christianity, although he, Paul, Peter, and other early members of his sect believed that THEIR judaism was correct, while the other were wrong. So did the essenes, pharisees, sadducees, and so forth.


He persecuted the Jesus sect. Paul never refers to them as christians, but as followers of the lord, and he in his letters admits to persecuting them, and Acts also records this. Read your sources to avoid appearing completely ignorant.

You speak from your mouth out, you are not thinking.

Actually I am typing. None of our sources connect Paul with founding christiantiy, not even Paul himself. Other preached the risen christ before him, and were exectured or thrown in prison because of it.

As I can see, you put too much faith in unreliable sources.

Funny considering you are using John. And josephus is a good source. Can you read greek? Have you studied textual criticism? The reference to James Jesus' brother is genuine according to virtually all experts.



You are too funny. You ask me to explain an alleged contradiction, and then when I show that it isn't, you call all the of that evidence false anyway. Basically, anything you don't believe isn't historical.

You have no evidence for anything you say. Everything is based on false notions. I think you do this just for thrill to argue.

Wrong. I showed you specific examples of early christians being killed and arrested before Paul, from Jesus to Stephen to Peter. You reject all those, not by any critical methodology, but because it disproves your point and you don't like that.

No, he was not real. He did not exist. Too many contradictions

.

Yes, it does contradict your theary. But that is why your theory is wrong.

Paul was never a christian either. Acts records that they were first called outsiders by Christians, and does not connect this with Paul. It took a long while after Paul for the term to be used by christians themselves.

Nevetheless, Christians started with him. Read Acts 11:26.

I have. It says that while he and Barnabas and others went to Antioch. It also says that it was there they were first called christians. It doesn't connect this with Paul, nor does it say Paul started christianity.

You love to believe unreliable sources and interpolations.

Give me three academic sources within the last 50 years stating that the reference to James is an interpolation.
Except according to the gospels and acts the disciples all preached the risen christ prior to James.

No, they didn't. If they had done it, Paul would not have almost been killed for doing the same.

Why not? Jesus, Stephen, James the disciple of Jesus (Acts 12) and James the brother of Jesus (Josephus) all were executed to, regardless of Paul.